The point I hope to have made, especially with posts #8 and #10, is that humans are designed for heterosexual marriage--where two people of the opposite sex are committed to each other for life and care about their spouse and the offspring that naturally, though not always, result. When we are designed a certain way and don't fight it, life works! We are designed to procreate, obviously. Less obviously but just as importantly, the natural differences (strength, demeanor, sexual drive and more) between man and woman help shape each of us into a better person. (Those ideas further developed here.) The societal interest in (1) procreation and (2) all of us being better people, gives the state a reason to speak to the issue of marriage, and to provide it with protection and encouragement (such as tax benefits).
There have always been aberrations. The masculine woman or the effeminate man are aberrations. Some people born with disabilities, such as infertility or mental retardation. Aberrations are not the basis for societal norms, nor should societal norms--or what we might think of as ideals--be revised in an attempt to call an aberration "normal." I have not taken a position on whether homosexuality is an aberration with which someone is born and "can't help" or whether it is the result of abuse, neglect or other nurture events in a person's life. In my view, answering that question is not terribly important to setting government policy on marriage. If a person is "gay" because they were born that way or because they were turned that way by forces in their life, they remain an aberration. Life is that way. Each of us has physical, mental, or emotional baggage we have to deal with!
As a matter of fact, one of the natural inclinations that everyone I know deals with is selfishness. "Easy divorce" laws have accommodated selfishness and wreaked untold damage on the "accommodated" individuals and their children. I am just as strongly opposed to easy divorce laws--which I view as a horrific "redefinition of marriage"--as I am to homosexual marriage--another horrific redefinition of marriage. Both of these are harmful to the participants and to any children involved. If the same factors existed in "blue houses" and "gray houses" we would clearly outlaw houses of those colors...for the children!
As I worked on this series, I found many resources that provide support for traditional, committed, man-woman marriage. Many of the reasons require no adherence to religious beliefs. You can find them, and many have been researched very thoroughly. I may revisit this topic from time to time. But I also realize that "Men willingly believe what they wish." (Julius Caesar) The following from Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby highlights that fact, and reminds me...well, I will conclude with that.
From Jacoby:
"Do kids raised by same-sex couples turn out as well as those raised by parents of the opposite sex? ... 'Not a single study,' the American Psychological Association categorically declared in a 2005 brief, 'has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.'
But was that conclusion ... warranted?
Loren Marks, a scholar at Louisiana State University, recently went back and reviewed the 59 studies on which the APA had relied. None of them, he writes in the July issue of the academic journal Social Science Research, 'compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children.' ...
In the same issue of Social Science Research, University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus publishes the results of a large national study, based on interviews with a random sample of 15,000 young adults (aged 18 to 39) about their families, upbringing, and life experiences. Regnerus's bottom line: Children raised by their biological mother and father in stable families tended to turn out better than those whose parents had been in same-sex relationships. ... Children raised by one or more gay parents, Regnerus wrote in an essay on Slate, 'were more apt to report being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed.' They were also more likely to have experienced infidelity, trouble with the law, and sexual victimization." [My emhasis added: complete column here. Similar studies supported my "Part 10" post]
Jacoby's column reminds me that who we elect and what power we give them is incredibly important. When we elect people to represent us in our increasingly-undemocratic (as a result of more centralized power) form of government, we must remember that if they “wish” to change the norms of society—even against the will of the majority as shown in every state-wide referenda to date!—they will find the “research” to support their policy. Contrary to the liberals' "we just want equal rights and it won't affect you" mantra, such changes do affect everyone. If, as research shows, this change in marriage policy results in increased pathologies, greater harm to children, more health costs, and the like—we all will bear the costs. The liberty we hold dear has been infringed upon.
On the other hand, if we elect people who respect millennia-long understandings of what is safe, wholesome and good, they likewise can find the research to support their "conservative"--conserve what is safe, wholesome and good--stance. May it be so!
